Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Motorola 68040 (possable bugs?)
Message-ID: <13345@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 21 Jul 90 00:40:33 GMT
References: <62864@sgi.sgi.com> <=Y943A7@xds13.ferranti.com> <7MJ$L}_@rpi.edu> <865@ssc.UUCP>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 24

In article <865@ssc.UUCP> markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes:
>In article <7MJ$L}_@rpi.edu>, DeWeeseT@socrates1.rdrc.rpi.edu (Thomas E. DeWeese) writes:
>> Hello I was wondering if, some one could answer my question, it has to do with
>> the Motorola 68040.  I heard from a reasonably reliable source (-read he may 
>> well be wrong) that there were problems with the 68040 and that Motorola would
>> be releasing a 68045 that corrected the errors.  I heard this about six 
>> months ago, and since I have had no cofermation of it I was wondering what
>> you people knew?
>
>Motorola usually doesn't change a part number to fix bugs.  They just
>put a warning paragraph in the spec sheet giving dates and mask revision
>codes.  Sounds bogus.

	As do most processor makers.  Look at the 80386/80486 bug sheets (or 
should I say books... :-)

	It would be hard for Motorola to have to release an 68045 when they
haven't released the 68040 yet, anyways.  6 Months ago, samples weren't
even available outside Motorola.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"